IMPORTANT POINT
Monetary relief under Domestic Violence Act could not be granted retrospectively prior to the date of coming into force of the act.

ORDER

H.C. Mishra, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.

2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.10.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Il, Dhanbad, in Cr. Appeal No. 184 of 2010, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and Order dated 19.7.2010 passed by Smt. Veena Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 754 of 2009/T.R. Case No. 727 of 2010, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below.

3. It may be stated that in the complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner No.1, who by the husband of the complainant, has been directed to provide an alternative accommodation to the victim complainant of the same level as being enjoyed, or pay rent for the same. He has also been restrained from renouncing his rights in the shared household. The petitioner No.1 has further been directed to make the payment of Rs.2,000 per month for a period of 9 years and 1 month prior to the order, which comes to Rs.2,18,000, medical expenses @ Rs.200 per month for the same period, which comes to Rs.21,800 and to make the payment of compensation of Rs.50,000 for mental injury, and he has been further directed to make the payment of Rs.6,000 per month towards the food, clothing, medication etc., from the date of filing of the case. All the petitioners have been directed to make the payment of Rs.10,000 each, as compensation to the victim complainant under Section 22 of the Act and they were also refrained from restraining the complainant from continued access to her personal effects in the shared household. The petitioner No.1 has also been directed to make the payment of 50% of the arrears of Rs.6,000 per month from May, 2009 till July, 2010, within a period of two months and the rest arrear amount and other amounts within a period of six months in three installments. In view of the fact that it was found by the Trial Court that the complainant was residing outside her matrimonial house shared household and as there was no evidence against which the respondents be restrained from committing domestic violence, she was not found entitled to any relief under section 18 of the Act.

4. The record shows that the complainant opposite party No.2, filed the complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which was numbered as C.P. Case No. 754 of 2009 under the provisions of the Act. According to the complainants case she was married to the petitioner No.1, Rakesh Sachdeva, as per Hindu customs on 21.2.1985, and thereafter she came to reside in the joint family house of her husband at Dhanbad. In the year 1986 the elder brother of the husband, viz., Ramesh Sachdeva, came from Punjab alongwith his family, and started living in the same house and thereafter the trouble of the complainant lady began. It is alleged that she was being subjected to mental agony by calling her as a barren lady, by the family members, except her husband, as she had not given birth to any child. Subsequently, the complainant alongwith her husband was shifted to the outhouse to avoid the regular unruly scenes. The younger brother of the husband of the complainant was married in the year 1988 and in the same year they were blessed with a daughter and thereafter the agony of the complainant further increased for not having given birth to any child, despite the marriage having taken place more than three years ago. She was always asked to stay away from the family functions, festivals and ceremonies and when such cruelty to the complainant further increased, the petitioner No.1, husband brought the complainant to her brothers house on the pretext that her absence from the house would ease the situation and with a promise to take her back as soon as the situation normalized. She was however, never taken back